Warshal: The future of the Republican Party

By Rabbi Bruce Warshal

Nov 06, 2017 | 12:00 PM

FPGJJBSretirement0409C FPG Photo/Lindsay Moore 4/2/2009 Rabbi Bruce Warshal of the Liberal Jewish Temple of Coconut Creek listens to temple members speak about him during his retirement luncheon at the Palm-Aire Country Club in Pompano Beach, Thursday, April 2, 2009. ORG XMIT: FPG0904031613333236 (Lindsay Moore / FPG)

The enormity of the damage from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma elicited almost universal support for Federal assistance. That support has now thrown light on two factions of the Republican Party: states' rights advocates and libertarians. Both of these caucuses have had to ignore their initial intellectual and emotional instincts to justify their support of humanitarian aid to the victims.

Starting with the states' rights advocates: They have never come to the conclusion that the bedrock of this nation is one united country based on the needs of the people. They have a hangover from a few of our founding fathers who believed the foundation of our government is independent states that ceded only limited authority to the Federal government. This was the philosophical basis of the Confederacy, albeit the real motivation for secession was the protection of slavery.

Advertisement

The result is that today states' rights advocates believe in limited Federal government, leaving the states as the primary governing unit. A prime example of this was Hurricane Sandy (a storm that killed more than 100 people). Both senators from Texas (Cruz and Cornyn) and 23 Texas Republican House members voted against Federal aid to New York and New Jersey. Their request for Harvey aid merely showed their hypocrisy. Philosophy be damned when money is involved.

The states' rights people, who are often evangelicals and Pro-Life advocates, rail against Federal guidelines in education, taxes, civil rights legislation (foisted upon their states) and the Federal safety net in general. In plain language, they don't like the Federal government – except when they want money from it.

The libertarians are the second caucus in the Republican Party. Unfortunately, libertarianism is increasing in strength, as people are becoming more alienated from the "establishment." It is difficult to precisely define libertarianism, as it morphs into no-government-at-all anarchism on the left, to very minimal centralized government on the right. And there are gradations of minimalism by various libertarian advocates.

The most prominent libertarian in the Senate is Rand Paul. I remember a defining moment when he was interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Asked whether he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he replied in the negative. He explained that he was not prejudiced (which I accept as true), but that government, State or Federal, should not be able to limit property rights. He believes that a restaurant or hotel owner has the right to exclude blacks, or any other people, from his establishment.

The average run-of-the-mill libertarian believes that government should be limited to establishing the military, the police and the courts. Some will extend this to fire departments and prisons. This doesn't leave much room for education, social services or medical care. Emergency aid to Hurricane Harvey or Irma victims would be out of the scope of government. One would assume that a good libertarian from Houston or the Keys would reject Federal government aid. Sure. No doubt.

Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist, was the champion of libertarianism. He believed in laissez-faire government, which excluded intervention in the economy. His disciples were influential in the George W. Bush administration. Under pressure from the reality of the Great Recession, Bush did begin the bailout. If the advice of the libertarian economists were followed, we would still be climbing out of the recession and we would no longer be driving General Motors or Chrysler automobiles.

Major crises, such as hurricanes, force us to think about what our philosophy of government should be. This certainly applies to the leadership of the Republican Party. Currently it is crippled by the Freedom Caucus, which is dominated by libertarians, and traditional states' rights advocates. Both of these factions have always been part of the Republican Party, but have been circumscribed and controlled.

Presently it appears that the traditional moderate conservatives who have long dominated the Party have been reduced to impotence. The tail is wagging the dog, leading inexorably to its destruction. Houston and the Keys will see the sun again. The question is: in the future, will the Republican Party bask in the sun? It depends on how well moderates will control states' rights advocates and libertarians.

I hope that the moderates succeed. Our country needs two responsible and sane political parties.